Historical Mystery Lovers discussion
Q & A Discussions
>
Quality of Short vs. Long Series
date
newest »
newest »
Most series (in any genre) get weaker as they get too long, I think. The ones that don't are the exceptions rather than the rule, in my opinion.How long is "too long" is another question, of course!
I find they're a bit all over the map. Some series weaken a bit in the middle, and others begin horribly but improve.
I suspect there is another reason why readers find that many series weaken as they progress. My theory is that the reader has an idea of how the character should be which may not fit with the author's overall vision. So, if it doesn't follow the reader's sort of subconscious plan, it's not strong. Now, some just fall flat on their own and do become weak by anyone's standard, but I'm not convinced that all long series weaken per sé
I suspect there is another reason why readers find that many series weaken as they progress. My theory is that the reader has an idea of how the character should be which may not fit with the author's overall vision. So, if it doesn't follow the reader's sort of subconscious plan, it's not strong. Now, some just fall flat on their own and do become weak by anyone's standard, but I'm not convinced that all long series weaken per sé
I find that I can overdose on a series if I don't take care and it is more likely to happen in a long series just because there are more entries. Filling in the characters' background and quirks is repetitive. With enough time lapse I enjoy even the series that do not move forward in the characters' lives. Without that time gap it would be like reading the same book over and over.That not to say that there aren't series where even the author seems to get bored with their hero; those I drop.
My favorite series have characters that develop and they are usually long series. A short series can work like a very long single story if it develops the characters and wraps up their story.
Paisley wrote: "I suspect there is another reason why readers find that many series weaken as they progress. My theory is that the reader has an idea of how the character should be which may not fit with the author's overall vision. So, if it doesn't follow the reader's sort of subconscious plan, it's not strong. Now, some just fall flat on their own and do become weak by anyone's standard, but I'm not convinced that all long series weaken per sé "I think there is probably a lot of truth to this. Good observation.
For myself, if I like the characters then I prefer a series over a stand alone. I enjoy getting to know the characters over a period of time, seeing how they grow and change or how they fall part, in some cases. You don't really get that deeper sense of intimacy with characters if there is just one book. Now how long a series should be depends on many things but I generally think that the perfect length for a series is 6-8 books. Of course, when I love a series I never want it to end but I also don't want to see it grow stale or for the author's loss of enthusiasm in the material to become evident through lazy writing (which I have seen happen on a few instances). It's a fine line to walk.
Paisley wrote: " My theory is that the reader has an idea of how the character should be which may not fit with the author's overall vision. So, if it doesn't follow the reader's sort of subconscious plan, it's not strong. "I think that's more the exception than the rule. I can't believe most authors start a series with the intention of becoming 10+ books long so I'm sure their 'vision' changes as the series progresses too. I think in most cases, really long series DO weaken because the author had a good idea for 3-5 books but the series becomes a moneymaker and they don't want to let it go. I've never read the Stephanie Plum series but I'm told the the love triangle hasn't been resolved and the characters haven't aged much in 20 books.
The latest (#14) in one of my long term series will come out tomorrow and the world building is still going strong but you can tell the author was a bit lost in the middle books as to where to take the series. Book 2 was almost the same as Book 1, in books 4-7 two different factions were introduced that have almost completely been abandoned at this point. Now, I think she knows where she's going but for a while, you can tell she was just fishing to see what made sense and that took her a few books to find out.
Mod
Lauren wrote: "Longer series can be problematic when the author runs out of ideas and ends up regurgitating old story lines. This is when it is time to call it quits before the series leaves a bad taste despite a..."Yes! This is, I think, one of the biggest problems that happens as a series drags along. I also agree with those of you who have said that sometimes authors appear to get lost.
It's one of the reasons I've always loved Agatha Christie - even though some of her series were long (Poirot has over 20 installments I believe), she wrote them over such a long period of time (around 50 years?) and she never repeated a way of killing someone.
Good questions...I am reading Patrica Wentworth's Miss Silver mysteries and I am on book 11 and I find that I like that there is so many in the series (so far) but if it does get to be the same old I would abandon the series.
Most authors develop a formula. They have similar plots and character dynamics. They often stop exploring the period in order to stick to the same pattern. I think that they've stopped being interested in the series themselves and are producing them because they have a contract. Occasionally, they will produce a novel in the middle of the series that's very different and my faith in the author will be restored.
Mod
When the plots start to repeat themselves and the character development goes out the window is a good time to call it quits on a series.
Mod
This is often the case with series that I'm on the verge of abandoning. The author offers up an excellent addition and then I'm hooked all over again. Unfortunately, the excellence is often short lived.
Lauren wrote: "Kris - My Novelesque Life wrote: "but if it does get to be the same old I would abandon the series. "When the plots start to repeat themselves and the character development goes out the window is..."
Exactly! Though not a historical mystery - Janet Evanovich was one series I abandoned by it was like names were changed but everything else was pretty similar in each book.
Does anyone else feel that the longest series/most prolific authors are not necessarily the best? Or is it just my taste or misfortune?
The likes of Doherty, Jecks, Gregory, Knight have written enough to keep us reading forever. But I don't sense much substance there and have picked then up and given up too many times. Meanwhile many great books are stand-alones or short series (Luiz Zafon, Thirteenth Tale, Shardlake, Parris, etc.) Ellis Peter's the exception for me ... long series, but not enough! Could it be that creating quality characters takes much time and prolific writers don't invest enough of it?
No offense to their fans, please. It's just the way it worked out for me. Not sure if it's a politically correct question or fair one, since there are long Victorian series and I'm not into that period.